Ferrari's wings

[RallyRaider]

No comments about the fuss over the sliding upper elements on Ferrai's front wings or the flex in the second element of their rear wing? I'm amazed there wasn't a protest over the clear non rigid attatchment of the front wing to the nose cone. Even Ferrari expected to be disqualified I think, hence the reason why Massa was allowed to finish in front of Schumacher.

I don't think the front wing is giving Ferarri any advantage, it's just sloppy engineering in my view. Unfortunately it perpetuates the long standing "specialness" of Ferrari when it comes to the rules and that is not a good thing for the FIA to still be doing. Sort it out Max.

[WasteGas]

Maybe the next time they show the front wing during the race, we'll see it rip right off. LOL

But I have to agree with you. Looks like Ferrari does get special treatment for some odd reason.

[willimo]

Considering how well engineered the sloppy engineering is, with the nice little pin letting it slide in and out, I'd say Ferrari is trying to see just how much they can get away with. Last year when Honda fudged the rules, they had the book thrown at them. I'm not even going to comment on if any of it is genuine cheating, but it's a point worth making.

[RallyRaider]

I think it is sloppy because the rules clearly state that all aerodynamic devices must be rigidly attached to the unsprung mass of the car (or words to that effect). Clearly the movable joint is a fudge by Ferrari to dissipate stress caused by the front wing flexing under load (which it must do to some extent within the limits allowed). If they were smart they'd have come up with a legal way of doing it, or at least conceal it from the onboard camera!

Compare it to the way Renault fix their extra upper element. Their wing will still flex but the joints don't slide and are rigid within the definition. Ferrari have copied the Renault idea but added a slight twist that is not very clever on the surface, unless there is some added benefit that is worth the controversy?

Allegedly eight teams signed a letter of complaint to the FIA but did not officially protest. No points for guessing who the three teams that abstained might have been.

Then of course there is the Ferrari rear wing which is an even greyer area.

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Even Ferrari expected to be disqualified I think, hence the reason why Massa was allowed to finish in front of Schumacher.

It's comments like these that ... ah, why bother, you knew what I could say before you posted it. I could call it idiotic. In fact I will - Phil, this comment was idiotic.

As for the Ferrari front wing, I doubt it flexes any more than that of other teams. I have footage from the nose camera on Montoya's Mclaren from '05 in which the amount that the wing flexes is just mindboggling. This year it was pretty much the same at Malaysia (noticed because I was looking for it). What we see here is that the attachemt of the upper winglets make it more noticeable on the Ferraris.

If Charlie whiting and the stewards have repeatedly confirmed the legality of the cars, why all the hot air? To the best of my knowledge, only one team filed an official protest, the rest, as always, are just spouting bullshit. Whiting , afaik, checked the rear wings on the Ferraris, Renaults and Mclarens and found nothing wrong with them (although unconfirmed information is that Mclaren and Ferrari were told to stiffen their front wings).

Originally Posted by WasteGas

Maybe the next time they show the front wing during the race, we'll see it rip right off. LOL

Like the mirrors on the Mclaren, right?

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by ales

It's comments like these that ... ah, why bother, you knew what I could say before you posted it. I could call it idiotic. In fact I will - Phil, this comment was idiotic.

Maybe Ross and Jean are practicing a more even handed approach for the arrival of Kimi next year? A definite change in style for the better, whatever the reason. Is that any less idiotic?

Originally Posted by ales

As for the Ferrari front wing, I doubt it flexes any more than that of other teams. I have footage from the nose camera on Montoya's Mclaren from '05 in which the amount that the wing flexes is just mindboggling. This year it was pretty much the same at Malaysia (noticed because I was looking for it). What we see here is that the attachemt of the upper winglets make it more noticeable on the Ferraris.

Of course the wing flexes, any material will, it is the moveable design of the joint that defies all logic (and the rulebook).

Originally Posted by ales

If Charlie whiting and the stewards have repeatedly confirmed the legality of the cars, why all the hot air? To the best of my knowledge, only one team filed an official protest, the rest, as always, are just spouting bullshit. Whiting , afaik, checked the rear wings on the Ferraris, Renaults and Mclarens and found nothing wrong with them (although unconfirmed information is that Mclaren and Ferrari were told to stiffen their front wings).

Come on Alex, when the shoe has been on the other foot Ferrai have bypassed Whiting's verdicts on other teams and had parts swiftly removed and redesigned. Never seems to work the other way does it? At times even I feel it can't really be a conspiracy because it is too damn obvious, but it just keeps happening over and over again, so what is anybody to think?

I agree the other teams should place official protests if there is something wrong going on. Although over the past few years behind the scenes finger pointing has for some sad reason become the prefered option (red teams included). Nobody wants to be seen as the "bad sport" it seems.

I don't care for "unconfirmed" reports. In this case they don't make sense, and is most likely just a false conter accusation. Unlike what can clearly be seen on a TV camera or the unusual construction of the Ferrari rear wing. There may be nothing to it but it sure looks unusual.

Originally Posted by ales

Like the mirrors on the Mclaren, right?

If only it was just a mirror on Kimi's car.

[RallyRaider]

Okay I see that most news sites are now reporting that BMW and McLaren have been asked to modify their wings for the next race. As usual it doesn't say what the issue is, may be flexabilty, may be something else.

What is one to think of this in context with Ferrari's issues? What have they been asked to change, if anything? Guess we'll have to watch the onboard cameras in Melbourne to find out.

[disomma]

is there any aero advantage if the end planes of the front wing flex outward? that is what it looked like to me. if theres no advantage, i doubt the FIA would say much about it to any team.

[freakray]

Phil, I can't believe you would even insinuate that Ferrari would ever do anything outside the rules. Seriously, we all know they are a strictly rule abiding team that do everything in the power to be fair to the other teams.

[RallyRaider]

It's not a question of "advantage", it is a case of Ferrari using a moveable joint that I (and plenty of more qualified F1 people) thought was illegal. It wasn't proved that BAR for instance gained an advantage from their hidden tank/collector last year. The FIA still banned em.

I don't mind if Ferari push the rules, it is the teams job to do so. For some foolish reason I expect them to be treated the same as everybody else, but that just never seems to happen. Disappointing.

[ales]

Or you could treat that pin design of the upper winglet as an extreme case of non-attachment

Here is a graphic representation of why Ferrari front wing is just more noticeable. I serously doubt you'll find any other team whose wing doesn't flex in a similar way and amount.

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Of course the wing flexes, any material will, it is the moveable design of the joint that defies all logic (and the rulebook).

If it defies the rulebook they should be told to change it. By the FIA. Again, that design has been deemed legal so far.

The rules say that aerodynamic devices shouldn't be moveable. Fair enough. In order to enforce that the FIA have a number of tests, all of which the Ferrari have passed. So how can you say it's against the rules? Spirit of the rules might be a different matter, but that area is as grey as it gets.

Ferrari rear wing is even more fun. It's stiff enough to pass all FIA tests. Probably not by much but still enough. Now all wings flex, it's a given. And Ferrari have found a way to make, or allow, their wings to flex more efficiently than others. If the FIA find it necessary for them to change it - so be it, both Jean and Ross have repeatedly said they will comply with the instructions. To my knowledge there have not been such instructions prior to Malaysia, and since you don't care for unconfirmed reports, none at all

[RallyRaider]

Of couse it flexes, everybody recognises that, the rules allow for it. If Ferrari moved the inner attachment point (the moveable bit) from the nosecone and attatched is similarly to the Ranualt design, but closer to the nosecone (if you get my drift) then all would be sweetness and light. Or alternatively yes they could have it non-attached, similar to what Williams do, but then they's lose the added benifit of all that extra wing area.

I reckon that since BMW and McLaren have been asked to modify less contentious parts on their cars, Ferrari have been asked to do the same. They're just being pig-headded at admitting anything was out of place. At least I hope so.

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by ales

If it defies the rulebook they should be told to change it. By the FIA. Again, that design has been deemed legal so far.

And so were McLaren's and BMW's, so why have they been asked to beef things up? I suspect their issues are with secondary elements that are not part of the regular wing flex tests. So is the FIA is making up new limits on the run? Why would they do that? Diverting attention? As a smokescreen? Sounds like something out of "Yes Minister".

But what about the main game? What have Ferrari been told to do? If the FIA were more transparent in their operation we wouldn't be wasting our time with this.

Originally Posted by ales

The rules say that aerodynamic devices shouldn't be moveable. Fair enough. In order to enforce that the FIA have a number of tests, all of which the Ferrari have passed. So how can you say it's against the rules? Spirit of the rules might be a different matter, but that area is as grey as it gets.

In this case the FIA have been caught out and never asked the right question. If that camera had not been where it was we'd all have been none the wiser. I'll say it again, the issue is not 'flex', everything will do that. The joint is moveable. Therefore I cannot see how can it be justified. Of course I don't work for Max Mosely or Ferrari so how could I possibly understand?

Originally Posted by ales

Ferrari rear wing is even more fun. It's stiff enough to pass all FIA tests. Probably not by much but still enough. Now all wings flex, it's a given. And Ferrari have found a way to make, or allow, their wings to flex more efficiently than others. If the FIA find it necessary for them to change it - so be it, both Jean and Ross have repeatedly said they will comply with the instructions. To my knowledge there have not been such instructions prior to Malaysia, and since you don't care for unconfirmed reports, none at all

Ah yes the rear wing is much more fun, the combined elements have effectively been designed to change cross section under load. Much tricker than the old tilt back fiddle that the current tests are designed for. It all depends where the FIA hang their weights or fit their rams. It is all to easy saying a car has passed all tests when the wrong tests are being performed. Since the secondary elemnts are now suddenly (and conveniently) under scrutiny, why not this trick?

In many ways it all goes back to the accusations against Michelin in 2003. They passed all tests too didn't they? But the FIA threatened to introduce new tests. They should do so here again. Or maybe they prefer an alternate reality and won't, we'll see.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by ales

The rules say that aerodynamic devices shouldn't be moveable.

Which would make a sliding joint in breach of the rules, since a sliding joint isn't, from any engineering standard, a fixed joint.